On Dec 11, 2002, Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> wrote:

> +struct frame_id
                ^^
> +dummy_frame_id_unwind (struct frame_info *frame,
> +		       void **cache)

> +extern struct frame_id dummy_frame_id_unwind (struct frame_info *frame,
> +					      void **unwind_cache);
> +
                       ^^

> +struct frame_id
> +frame_id_unwind (struct frame_info *frame)
> +{
> +  if (!frame->id_unwind_cache_p)
> +    {
> +      frame->id_unwind_cache =
> +	frame->id_unwind (frame, &frame->unwind_cache);
[ type mismatch above ]
> +      frame->id_unwind_cache_p = 1;
> +    }
> +  return frame->id_unwind_cache;
> +}

> +/* Unwind the frame ID.  Return an ID that uniquely identifies the
> +   caller's frame.  */
> +extern struct frame_id frame_id_unwind (struct frame_info *frame);
                       ^^

> +    struct frame_id id_unwind_cache;
                    ^^ 

I believe this is enough evidence that the typedef below was meant to
have struct frame_id in the return type, instead of frame_info:

> +typedef struct frame_info (frame_id_unwind_ftype) (struct frame_info *frame,
> +						   void **unwind_cache);
                        ^^^^ 
 

So I'm checking this in as obvious.